Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, I have a few thoughts on this issue:

1) Whilst I can understand wanting armies to field more HQs, it seems rather silly to enforce it when you've just stripped most HQs of virtually all their options.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I like being able to differentiate between characters - and one of the main ways to bring that across is by giving them different gear. However, virtually all the non-weapon gear has been removed in 8th. So all you can really do now is give your HQs different swords, which I find lacklustre.

Maybe the codices will improve this, but we've no idea how long each army will have to wait for theirs, nor even how much more gear each codex will actually bring.

2) It seems really weird that there's no equivalent of the old CAD.
- We have a detachment that lets you field 3-6 Elite units without taking more than 1 HQ.
- We have a detachment that lets you field 3-6 Fast Attack units without taking more than 1 HQ.
- We have a detachment that lets you field 3-6 Heavy Support units without taking more than 1 HQ.

However, there is no detachment that allows you to field 3-6 Troop units without taking more than 1 HQ. You have to either use a Patrol detachment (which only allows 3 troops per HQ) or else you use a Battalion (which allows 3-6 Troops, but requires a minimum of 2 HQs).

This just seems completely backwards to me. Why on earth is it harder to mass troops than it is to mass Elites, FA or HS units? Surely it should be the other way round - since the whole point of troops is that they're the standard men for each army. They're the core around which most armies are built.

3) As others have said, having to field multiple HQs seems far harsher on some armies than on others. Let me just take the armies I play as examples - Necrons, IG and DE.

With my Necrons and IG, multiple HQs are fine. My Necron HQs bring different skills to the table (D. Lords buff Destroyers, Overlords give Infantry an offensive buff, Crypteks give units a defensive buff etc.) and I'll often want at least 2-3 in every army. Likewise, IG HQs bring excellent buff to the table - whether in the form of Orders (Company Commanders) or Ld (Commissars). They're also incredibly cheap, so I'm happy to bring them en masse.

However, we now get to DE. To begin with, they have far fewer HQs than the other two. Indeed, Necrons have more Special Characters than DE have HQ characters and special characters combined. What's more, their buffs are far more specialised than the others and don't allow any overlap at all (a Succubus can only buff other Wych units, a Haemonculus can only buff Coven units etc.). What's more, many of the buffs they bring just aren't that useful - like the Archon's Ld aura (which is useless when he's in a transport, and he will be in a transport because he has no other options).

Put simply, with Necrons and IG, I'm taking extra HQs because I want to anyway. The fact that the detachment requires them is simply a formality. With DE, I'm taking extra HQs because I have to - not because I want to or because they bring anything more to the army.

(To be clear, I'm not saying DE are the worst affected by this - just that they're by far the worst of the armies I actually play.)

As far as HQs are concerned I have been looking over my list, especially my Guard and the # of HQs are not my concern, it is the number of Elite Slots that is.
My old Kell/Creed Company Command Squad is now taking up.
HQ: 1
Elite: 6

 Anpu42 wrote:
As far as HQs are concerned I have been looking over my list, especially my Guard and the # of HQs are not my concern, it is the number of Elite Slots that is.
My old Kell/Creed Company Command Squad is now taking up.
HQ: 1
Elite: 6

Out of interest, what Elites are you using?

 Karoline Dianne wrote:
For the more solo factions like Tau I can see things getting a little tight

Altho it seems like all the Tau players in the Tau thread are talking about spamming Battalion with 2 Supreme Command Detachments, so that they can have the maximum possible number of HQs allowed.

It seems they want to bring 10-15 HQs per game.

 vipoid wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
As far as HQs are concerned I have been looking over my list, especially my Guard and the # of HQs are not my concern, it is the number of Elite Slots that is.
My old Kell/Creed Company Command Squad is now taking up.
HQ: 1
Elite: 6

Out of interest, what Elites are you using?

All of them: Kell, MoO (Maybe more than one), Command Squad, OotF (Maybe more than one), Astropath, Nork.
They always work for me (I love Pie) and Nork can tank wounds like no ones business.

 vipoid wrote:


2) It seems really weird that there's no equivalent of the old CAD.
- We have a detachment that lets you field 3-6 Elite units without taking more than 1 HQ.
- We have a detachment that lets you field 3-6 Fast Attack units without taking more than 1 HQ.
- We have a detachment that lets you field 3-6 Heavy Support units without taking more than 1 HQ.

However, there is no detachment that allows you to field 3-6 Troop units without taking more than 1 HQ. You have to either use a Patrol detachment (which only allows 3 troops per HQ) or else you use a Battalion (which allows 3-6 Troops, but requires a minimum of 2 HQs).

This just seems completely backwards to me. Why on earth is it harder to mass troops than it is to mass Elites, FA or HS units? Surely it should be the other way round - since the whole point of troops is that they're the standard men for each army. They're the core around which most armies are built.

Totally this. 1 HQ + 3 FA/El/HS nets you +1 CP, whereas 1 HQ + 3 Troops nets you 0 CP. No problem with opening things up to more varied lists, but come on, give people some incentive to take Troops.

Yes, I am finding Elites are the issue with Guard Units. I just did up my old Guard List using the Brigade Detachment and two things stopped me from rebuilding it.
1] I ran out of Power Levels
2] I had a Commissar for every Squad, if they were 1-3 per Elite Slot like back in the RT Days it would not be to bad. I am going to have to go to a paired Detachment set up. One Battalion Detachment for the core of the units and one (Possibly 2) Vanguard Detachment just to get the Commissars and other Officers

Why on earth is it harder to mass troops than it is to mass Elites, FA or HS units? Surely it should be the other way round - since the whole point of troops is that they're the standard men for each army. They're the core around which most armies are built.

Because you need more command infrastructure to manage them.

The elites need less management on the battelfield.

standard = need more direction. All the other units - think of them as the more independent or less 'overhead' units.

I can say that in most of indexes I have read (a lot, not all, but a lot) the HQ slot is brimming with quality units.
I don't find the new requirements burdensome ...at all.

But to each their own....

davethepak wrote:

Why on earth is it harder to mass troops than it is to mass Elites, FA or HS units? Surely it should be the other way round - since the whole point of troops is that they're the standard men for each army. They're the core around which most armies are built.

Because you need more command infrastructure to manage them.

The elites need less management on the battelfield.

standard = need more direction. All the other units - think of them as the more independent or less 'overhead' units.

Sorry but that is provably wrong.

- Kabalite Warriors do not need more direction than Sslyth
- Wracks do not need more direction than Ur-Ghuls
- Wyches do not need more direction than Clawed Fiends, Khymerae or Razorwing Flocks
- Scions do not need more direction than Ogryns or Bullgryns
etc.

It's not especially harder to mass Troops. You can take Patrol Detachments and bring three cannon-fodder units for one HQ tax. But you'll get fewer Command Points than if you brought along a few more HQ to provide leadership to the troops.

It is a bit odd that a Commissar babysitting a Vanguard of six mobs of Ogryns has more free time to plan a gambit than if he were accompanying a Patrol of lasgunners, but there we go.

Happy enough here personally, they brought out the old FoC, then spent many words in many books providing get outs, exceptions, units that were HQ, but didn't take a slot etc.

No issues running say multiple chaos lords, one or two get bling, the rest basic kit, 'lesser lords'.

My marines can have Captains, plus a whole range of other officers, again by varying the equipment, ditto IG if I ever blow the dust off them.

This sort of force structure system is what the FOC should have been in the first place then there would have been no need for the formations to get around the restrictions.

Bit like how they got rid of the Move stat, then over time threw in a stack of special movement rules to put it back bit by bit.

Problem for some armies with one or two HQ units/models? adapt the model, make a new name, same stats but they are now yours

leopard wrote:

Problem for some armies with one or two HQ units/models? adapt the model, make a new name, same stats but they are now yours

Please tell me you can understand how that feels like a lame cop-out.

In the last 5 editions I have rarely taken multiple HQ units. I wanted to take my old lists and try them in the new edition but they don't fit into the detachments properly.

Zustiur wrote:

leopard wrote:

Problem for some armies with one or two HQ units/models? adapt the model, make a new name, same stats but they are now yours

Please tell me you can understand how that feels like a lame cop-out.

In the last 5 editions I have rarely taken multiple HQ units. I wanted to take my old lists and try them in the new edition but they don't fit into the detachments properly.

They do fit tho. GW said "All armies will be playable" not "All armies will perfectly match old to new"

Zustiur wrote:

leopard wrote:

Problem for some armies with one or two HQ units/models? adapt the model, make a new name, same stats but they are now yours

Please tell me you can understand how that feels like a lame cop-out.

In the last 5 editions I have rarely taken multiple HQ units. I wanted to take my old lists and try them in the new edition but they don't fit into the detachments properly.

What was your list? It seems like very few would not be able to fit into some combination of new detachments.

The biggest offender would be a list with 6 troops and 3 of every other slot.

leopard wrote:
Problem for some armies with one or two HQ units/models? adapt the model, make a new name, same stats but they are now yours

Why do we even have more than one unit in the game? Just one unit profile is all we need. Just change the name and race of the unit, same stats but they are now yours! /s

MaxT wrote:

Zustiur wrote:

leopard wrote:

Problem for some armies with one or two HQ units/models? adapt the model, make a new name, same stats but they are now yours

Please tell me you can understand how that feels like a lame cop-out.

In the last 5 editions I have rarely taken multiple HQ units. I wanted to take my old lists and try them in the new edition but they don't fit into the detachments properly.

They do fit tho. GW said "All armies will be playable" not "All armies will perfectly match old to new"

Not entirely true, they said all models will be usable, all armies will be playable in open play. But in matched play not all lists are possible without change. If you assume command points cannot be negative, then having only 1 HQ limits you on having 3 of each slot and 6 troops.

If you use the 3 detachment limit even more so, the max troops you can take with 1 HQ would be 5.

Breng77 wrote:
Not entirely true, they said all models will be usable, all armies will be playable in open play. But in matched play not all lists are possible without change. If you assume command points cannot be negative, then having only 1 HQ limits you on having 3 of each slot and 6 troops.

If you use the 3 detachment limit even more so, the max troops you can take with 1 HQ would be 5.

There's no such restriction on negative CP's nor on detachment limits for matched play. The 3 detachment limit of 3 is a suggestion for tournies, not matched play in general.

MaxT wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Not entirely true, they said all models will be usable, all armies will be playable in open play. But in matched play not all lists are possible without change. If you assume command points cannot be negative, then having only 1 HQ limits you on having 3 of each slot and 6 troops.

If you use the 3 detachment limit even more so, the max troops you can take with 1 HQ would be 5.

There's no such restriction on negative CP's nor on detachment limits for matched play. The 3 detachment limit of 3 is a suggestion for tournies, not matched play in general.

There are no rules that allow you to have less than 0 command points, so it is a safe assumption that you cannot have negative command points. Now it is not spelled out, but I think it is an assumption most people will make as there are no mechanics for what negative command points would mean. I also think that the 3 detachment limit will be common practice by tournies and thus for many play groups.

Biophysical wrote:
For IG/AM, you could look at excessive "Company Commanders" as the product of high quality junior officer training. They are technically platoon commanders, but are equivalent front-line leaders to the company commander. They may not habe the planning and larger organization skills of a true company commander, but those skills aren't represented at the level of the game, anyway.

The responses and those similar seem odd to me. That tells you why there is extra Company Commanders or equivalent - but it doesn't tell you what happened to all the missing junior officers. Military organizations, worldwide and throughout history are pyramids in structure. For very obvious reasons. The one top tier, with a few below handling further divisions, then a few below each of those handling further divisions all the way down.

Making all the junior officer equivalents into Elites was a baffling choice to me. It would also be nice if they reintroduced some junior HQ choices in different factions. mini Haemonculi like DE had when they started for example, Enginseers for AdMech. For that matter, things like Cannoness with Seraphim wings for Sisters.

It just seems like there is a really wide disparity between factions which can easily and effectively grab up loads of command points with cheap and effective HQs and Troops, and a bunch of other factions that can't. I don't know if it will be a big enough factor to actually make more of a difference than other balance issues between factions but it is absolutely a factor worth looking at.

Breng77 wrote:
There are no rules that allow you to have less than 0 command points, so it is a safe assumption that you cannot have negative command points. Now it is not spelled out, but I think it is an assumption most people will make as there are no mechanics for what negative command points would mean. I also think that the 3 detachment limit will be common practice by tournies and thus for many play groups.

Obviously this would be a house rule, but you could say that for each negative command point you have, your opponent gets an extra command point at the start of the game.

 vipoid wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
There are no rules that allow you to have less than 0 command points, so it is a safe assumption that you cannot have negative command points. Now it is not spelled out, but I think it is an assumption most people will make as there are no mechanics for what negative command points would mean. I also think that the 3 detachment limit will be common practice by tournies and thus for many play groups.

Obviously this would be a house rule, but you could say that for each negative command point you have, your opponent gets an extra command point at the start of the game.

Right you could do that, but it isn't in the rules. I would not favor that rule simply because I think command points )at the moment, have diminishing return after a certain point (if I have say 12 CP, you giving me another 12 does very little for me, compared to you essentially playing unbound).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Happy Anarchist wrote:

Biophysical wrote:
For IG/AM, you could look at excessive "Company Commanders" as the product of high quality junior officer training. They are technically platoon commanders, but are equivalent front-line leaders to the company commander. They may not habe the planning and larger organization skills of a true company commander, but those skills aren't represented at the level of the game, anyway.

The responses and those similar seem odd to me. That tells you why there is extra Company Commanders or equivalent - but it doesn't tell you what happened to all the missing junior officers. Military organizations, worldwide and throughout history are pyramids in structure. For very obvious reasons. The one top tier, with a few below handling further divisions, then a few below each of those handling further divisions all the way down.

Making all the junior officer equivalents into Elites was a baffling choice to me. It would also be nice if they reintroduced some junior HQ choices in different factions. mini Haemonculi like DE had when they started for example, Enginseers for AdMech. For that matter, things like Cannoness with Seraphim wings for Sisters.

It just seems like there is a really wide disparity between factions which can easily and effectively grab up loads of command points with cheap and effective HQs and Troops, and a bunch of other factions that can't. I don't know if it will be a big enough factor to actually make more of a difference than other balance issues between factions but it is absolutely a factor worth looking at.

Cheap troops are actually more useful in spamming CP than Cheap HQ because of the required units in each detachment. Also some factions with expensive HQ have some of those HQ giving you more CP just by existing. I think making the Junior HQ elites is meant to force people to take the more expensive options rather than just cheaply filling a slot.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
Meh, I'm ready to model up as many Librarians as it takes...

Considering you can only attempt to cast smite more than once - every other spell is one attempt per turn - you might consider techmarines.

Let's see... 18" range closest unit, can you roll a 5 on 2d6 for 1d3 mortal wounds or 10 for 1d6 mortal wounds?

Pretty sure, as many Librarians as possible is perfectly viable.

 Talamare wrote:

 Karoline Dianne wrote:
For the more solo factions like Tau I can see things getting a little tight

Altho it seems like all the Tau players in the Tau thread are talking about spamming Battalion with 2 Supreme Command Detachments, so that they can have the maximum possible number of HQs allowed.

It seems they want to bring 10-15 HQs per game.

I think 10-15 HQs is a bit of an exaggeration here, but yes, the actual utility of a Tau commander in comparison to regular crisis suits and their relative points costs makes the commander a very, very tempting option, but I think as time goes on the regular suits will find their niche.

Certainly if an FAQ or codex update adjusts them.

Well, it could be an exaggeration:



Note: this army deploys as 1 model on turn 1. It is pretty much going to go first.

 Captain Joystick wrote:

 Talamare wrote:

 Karoline Dianne wrote:
For the more solo factions like Tau I can see things getting a little tight

Altho it seems like all the Tau players in the Tau thread are talking about spamming Battalion with 2 Supreme Command Detachments, so that they can have the maximum possible number of HQs allowed.

It seems they want to bring 10-15 HQs per game.

I think 10-15 HQs is a bit of an exaggeration here, but yes, the actual utility of a Tau commander in comparison to regular crisis suits and their relative points costs makes the commander a very, very tempting option, but I think as time goes on the regular suits will find their niche.

Certainly if an FAQ or codex update adjusts them.

Battalion Detachment +3 (345, 30 PL)
Cadre Fireblade - 42
Cadre Fireblade - 42
Ethreal - 45

Firewarriors x5 - 40
Firewarriors x5 - 40
Firewarriors x5 - 40
Firewarriors x5 - 40
Gun Drones x8 - 56

Battlion Detachment +3 (345, 30 PL)
Cadre Fireblade - 42
Cadre Fireblade - 42
Ethreal - 45

Firewarriors x5 - 40
Firewarriors x5 - 40
Firewarriors x5 - 40
Firewarriors x5 - 40
Gun Drones x8 - 56

Supreme Command +1 (806, 35 PL)
Commander ATS CIB - 138
Commander ATS CIB - 138
Commander ATS CIB - 138
Commander ATS MP - 156
Commander ATS MP - 156
Gun Drones x10 - 80

1496 points, 95 PL, +10 Command Points, 11 HQs

Battalion, not brigade. Although still... kill points.

 Lansirill wrote:
Battalion, not brigade. Although still... kill points.

What page are kill points on?

 Talamare wrote:

 Lansirill wrote:
Battalion, not brigade. Although still... kill points.

What page are kill points on?

219

 Lansirill wrote:

 Talamare wrote:

 Lansirill wrote:
Battalion, not brigade. Although still... kill points.

What page are kill points on?

219

No Mercy will basically state that Tau can't bring Drones. Since they are separate units now.

That list for example 13 KP in just Drones, and that's a small amount of Drones to take.